No that's not at all "exactly it." Do you realize you're moving the goalposts?

Looking for flaws in an applications according to existing critera is totally different than somehow retroactively declaring the previous regulations were invalid and screwing everyone who relied on them by revoking their naturalization.

> where Chevron comes in, that a lot of these norms are rules within departments where such things can be evaluated

Chevron says if there's a controversy over those things, a court needs to resolve it without giving total deference to the department. It doesn't say those "norms are rules" must be struck down, it just says a court will decided if they're following the law.

> but Project 2025 says if it isn't a law or statute then it doesn't matter, and that includes any concept of a person living here but not a full, naturalized citizen.

You seem to be saying here that there's no law or statute that allows for any state besides "full, naturalized citizen," and that's just so totally not true that it's bonkers you're claiming it.